A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? Prove that it's a very poor discussion David, or who will look like an idiot?

I already did that, asshat. Your father's proof was a textbook example of the modal fallacy. And I gave you the links for an in-depth discussion on said fallacy -- links to esays that, no doubt, you did not read; and no doubt would be too stupid to understand even if you had read them.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What should I call you? The King; The Almighty; The All Knowing?

Oh, no indeed! That is what we are supposed to call your moronic, pool-hustling, seventh-grade dropout father, next to whom the world's finest minds are but those of chimpanzees!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So why are you here?

I enjoy exposing liars and charlatans like Your Royal Highness.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't consider seeing objects and images efferently a transfer of information. I don't believe it's a violation of Special Relativity. People are accusing Lessans of altering a definition to meet his purposes; but not if his definition is more accurate. Let me repeat: Definitions mean nothing as far as reality is concerned, which is why we're going round and round the mulberry bush.

So, learning that the sun has been turned on is not acquiring information, airhead?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course things happen in life, doc, but many of those things can be prevented, or dealt with in such a way that no one gets hurt.

Failing is not hurting, that is just a whiney liberal load of BS, for a human being, and especially a mature person, failing is a learning process. Anyone who fails and see's it as a hurt to them, diserves all the missery they get.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We gain understanding because of how the brain processes that information. What is the difference whether I see the information (efferent vision) and then process it, or receive the information through the optic nerve (afferent vision), and then process it?

So in either form of vision we are seeing/receiving information?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, it's a difference of 800 years. But wouldn't you want to know, or at least find out, if this model of sight could be wrong? Remember, I'm not saying we wouldn't see the light after it has traveled from point A to point B. But if we are looking at the light source directly, we would see it in real time. I can see the moon in real time, and can also see the moon's image in a pinhole camera that took a finite time to get there.

You are saying that we see with our eyes imediately and the camera sees after a delay when the light arrives?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People are accusing Lessans of altering a definition to meet his purposes; but not if his definition is more accurate. Let me repeat: Definitions mean nothing as far as reality is concerned,

First you admit that Lessans has altered definitions, then you claim that his are more accurate, and now you are stating that definitions are meaningless? That is just about the most stupid thing you have said thus far. Consistant and accepted definitions are the basis of all comunications, altering a definition can only mean that the statement is wrong and needs a dose of fiction to justify it. If it doesn't fit the accepted definition then it is wrong, or needs to be stated a different way, in correct terminology. Lessans education, rather than being superior to those with a degree, was severly lacking, as he didn't have an accurate grasp of the terms he was attempting to use. He wore out all those dictionarys because he was incapable of understanding the meanings of the words he was looking up.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I already did that, asshat. Your father's proof was a textbook example of the modal fallacy. And I gave you the links for an in-depth discussion on said fallacy -- links to esays that, no doubt, you did not read; and no doubt would be too stupid to understand even if you had read them.

That's all you keep saying, but there is no logical, causal, or epistemic fallacy. None of these apply.

1. Logical determinism is most frequently couched as the problem of “future contingents.” The threat to the exercise of free will arises from the thesis that the truth-value (that is, the truth or falsity) of any proposition is timeless (that is, those propositions that are true are always true, and those propositions that are false are always false). (Note that the term “proposition” is being used strictly, as is common in philosophy, to refer roughly to the meanings of (indicative or declarative) sentences; see sec. 2 of Truth.) Thus:

If a proposition about some future action you undertake (let’s say tomorrow) is true, then it is true now. But if it is true now, then tomorrow you must undertake that action, that action must occur, you are powerless to prevent yourself from undertaking that action.

(Note that “logical” in the phrase “logical determinism” is not meant to contrast with “illogical”, but instead refers to a particular concept of logic, namely truth itself.)

2. Epistemic determinism has a strikingly similar formulation. Instead of simply attributing truth (or falsity) to propositions about the future, epistemic determinism concerns such propositions’ being known prior to the times of the occurrences they refer to. We then get this argument, parallel to the preceding one:


If a proposition about some future action you undertake is known (in advance), then (when the time comes) you must undertake that action, that action must occur, you are powerless to prevent yourself from undertaking that action.

3. Causal determinism is the thesis that all events (occurrences, processes, etc.) are the result of Laws of Nature and of antecedent conditions and of nothing else. Thus (to cite an example made famous by Carl Hempel), when a car radiator cracks overnight, it is the consequence of laws pertaining to the tensile strength of iron, of laws pertaining to the expansion of water upon freezing, to the structure of the radiator, to its being filled with water without anti-freeze, and to the temperature’s falling well below freezing for several hours (Hempel, 1942). In the case of human beings’ acting, the same scenario is said to obtain.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The claim about the brain looking out through the eyes- "the direction we see" -isn't a part of the relativity discussion.

The claim that we in real time, that we gain information instantly, is the point of the relativity discussion.

It boils down to whether seeing instantly fits into the definition of "information that is attained faster than the speed of light." I really don't believe it applies because no information is being transmitted or conveyed through time and space when we see efferently. Yes, light travels and we attain information when it reaches its destination, but that's not what I'm talking about. If the eyes see in real time, there is no time element, so it's not comparable. I really want to get off this discussion because it's just a repeat of the same old same old. We're never going to resolve it here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You are saying that we see with our eyes imediately and the camera sees after a delay when the light arrives?

No doc.

[peacegirl]

repeat

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People are accusing Lessans of altering a definition to meet his purposes; but not if his definition is more accurate. Let me repeat: Definitions mean nothing as far as reality is concerned,

Originally Posted by thedoc

First you admit that Lessans has altered definitions, then you claim that his are more accurate, and now you are stating that definitions are meaningless?

They are meaningless if they don't describe what is actually going on in the real world.

Originally Posted by thedoc

That is just about the most stupid thing you have said thus far. Consistant and accepted definitions are the basis of all comunications, altering a definition can only mean that the statement is wrong and needs a dose of fiction to justify it. If it doesn't fit the accepted definition then it is wrong, or needs to be stated a different way, in correct terminology. Lessans education, rather than being superior to those with a degree, was severly lacking, as he didn't have an accurate grasp of the terms he was attempting to use. He wore out all those dictionarys because he was incapable of understanding the meanings of the words he was looking up.

Consistent and accepted definitions don't mean anything unless they are accurate. The entire world can accept a certain definition but it can still be incomplete, or plain wrong. He was demonstrating where the two opposing ideologies of free will and determinism are reconciled when we have a better grasp of what determinism actually means.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So in either form of vision we are seeing/receiving information?

In either form of vision the brain processes the information.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Failing is not hurting, that is just a whiney liberal load of BS, for a human being, and especially a mature person, failing is a learning process. Anyone who fails and see's it as a hurt to them, diserves all the missery they get.

That's not what I meant.

[The Lone Ranger]

Poor Einstein. It's a shame he didn't know what he was talking about when he was describing what information is, and how it cannot travel between two points in less time than it would take for light to travel that distance, Isn't it?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No doc.

Can you explain the apparent contradiction.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In either form of vision the brain processes the information.

That is not what I asked, why are you dodging the question?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Poor Einstein. It's a shame he didn't know what he was talking about when he was describing what information is, and how it cannot travel between two points in less time than it would take for light to travel that distance, Isn't it?

There isn't anything traveling between two points in efferent vision. Why can't you get this Lone? Don't answer.

[LadyShea]

Seeing and/or receiving the information via the eyes in real time is where the clash with relativity comes in...how it is processed and used by the brain is completely secondary.

I have stated this many times, afferent or efferent doesn't matter because the information enters the eyes first (information being the visual properties of whatever is being seen) in both models.

There isn't anything traveling between two points in efferent vision

The information about the object is at some point outside yourself. Therefore the information or knowledge has to travel between you and the object, peacegirl.

What is so hard to understand?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

That is not what I asked, why are you dodging the question?

I didn't dodge the question; I just didn't answer the question the way you wanted.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Seeing and/or receiving the information via the eyes in real time is where the clash with relativity comes in...how it is processed and used by the brain is completely secondary.

I have stated this many times, afferent or efferent doesn't matter because the information enters the eyes first (information being the visual properties of whatever is being seen) in both models.

There is no information entering the eyes. That would mean information transmission (something would be moving to enter), which would entail time. The eyes see; nothing enters. Processing would be secondary in both models.

[LadyShea]

No, you are being obtuse.

I reworked your sentence to remove the confusing and extraneous additions you keep insisting on

seeing instantly fits into the definition of "information that is attained"

Seeing is acquiring information via the eyes. That's the definition.

Lessans said that we acquire information (the data regarding the visual properties), via the eyes, about objects apart from ourselves instantaneously (ie faster than light speed). Our whole point is that is not possible under special relativity and not possible under causality as well

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There isn't anything traveling between two points in efferent vision. Why can't you get this Lone? Don't answer.

Because you yourself have freely stated that seeing is transfer of information from the source to the eyes. You even (correctly) stated that it was "obviously" so.

Except, of course, when it's pointed out to you that this necessarily means that instantaneous vision violates Special Relativity. Then you start claiming that there is no transfer of information.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Seeing and/or receiving the information via the eyes in real time is where the clash with relativity comes in...how it is processed and used by the brain is completely secondary.

I have stated this many times, afferent or efferent doesn't matter because the information enters the eyes first (information being the visual properties of whatever is being seen) in both models.

The information about the object is at some point outside yourself. Therefore the information or knowledge has to travel between you and the object, peacegirl.

What is so hard to understand?

I understand your position pretty well. But it seems hard for you to grasp that the brain, through the eyes, can see what is in the eye's field of vision without the objects and images in that field having to travel from a certain point to the eye. I can see why this is confusing because of the knowledge that light travels, therefore it seems completely logical to conclude that this same light enters the eye and the wavelengths are interpreted through the conversion of photons into signals that are then sent to the brain.